Testing the Democratic Peace Theory in 2009

1. Testing the Democratic Peace Theory in 2009 Greg Poling gp7393a@american.edu American University School of International Service

2. Research Question & Research Hypothesis • Research Questions • Is Kant’s theory of the “democratic peace” true? (Do states with a higher degree of freedom behave more peacefully in both their internal and external relations?) • If so, is it a dyadic theory only? Or is it monadic as well? • Is the peace a result of democratic norms or practice? • Research hypothesis • When controlling for GDP per capita, region and religion, a state’s Global Peace Index score is negatively correlated with its Political Rights and Civil Liberties score.

3. Literature Review • “Exploring the Dynamics of the Democratic Peace” by Lars-Erik Cederman and Mohan Penubarti Rao • Theory: Democratic dyads are less likely to engage in conflict, and this tendency is strengthened over time. • Findings: The association is not only present, but “becomes firmly pacifying from the turn of the century and descends steadily as the 20th century progresses.” • “Colonial War and the Democratic Peace” by Hilde Ravlo, Nils Peter Gleditsch and Hans Dorussen • Theory: More democratic states are less likely to engage in extrasystemic conflict. (Refutes the “democratic imperialism” theory). • Findings: Freer states engage in fewer extrasystemic conflicts, especially in the post-colonial era.

4. Data • Unit of analysis: Country • Source of the data: Freedom House’s 2010 Freedom in the World sub-category scores, Institute for Economics and Peace’s 2010 Global Peace Index, World Bank’s 2009 World Development Indicators, CIA World Factbook, and Pippa Norris’ Democracy Crossnational Data for Spring 2009. • Reliability of the data: Observations for 139 countries for all variables; very reliable. • Dependent variable/s • Y is the Global Peace Index Score (GPI), which is an interval-ratio level variable measured as a score. • Independent Variable • X1 is the aggregate Political Rights and Civil Liberties Score (PRCL), which is an interval-ratio level variable measured as a score. • Control Variables • X2 is GDP per capita (GDPPC), measured as 2009 international dollars (PPP). • X3-X5 are dummy variables for religion- Christian, Muslim and Buddhist. • X6 -X10 are dummy variables for region- West, Africa, Asia, Middle East, and South America.

5. Descriptive Statistics Data source: Data are taken from the Institute for Economics and Peace’s 2010 Global Peace Index, Freedom House’s 2010 subscores, and the World Bank’s 2009 World Development Indicators.

6. Bivariate analysis Data source: Data are taken from the Institute for Economics and Peace’s 2010 Global Peace Index, Freedom House’s 2010 subscores, and the World Bank’s 2009 World Development Indicators. Coefficients significant at the 0.1% level are bold.

7. Bivariate Regression (Model 1)

8. Regression Analysis /Contingency Coefficient significant at the 0.01% level are bold. Note: a. Dependent variable is not transformed. b. Dependent variable is log transformed.

9. Residuals Model 1 Model 3 Model 5

10. Findings & Policy Implications • Findings: • I reject the null: There is a significant, moderate and negative association between a state’s GPI score and PRCL score, and it is robust across all models. • Democracies are likely to be more peaceful not only in their relations with each other, but in their overall behavior. • Given that the dependent variable used in this analysis, the Global Peace Index, includes both external and internal factors, it is likely that the results reflect a normative preference for peaceful conflict resolution, rather than just the institutional constraints of waging war in a democracy. • Policy Implications: • US would be better served by promoting greater freedom around the world rather than short-term security gains. • Even incremental changes in a state’s level of freedom are likely to increase its peacefulness.